Consumer Reports, the consumer advocacy group that gained notoriety for refusing to recommend Apple's iPhone 4 because of its external antenna, has tested Apple's new iPad and found it can heat up to 116 degrees when running graphic-intensive games [updated].

Update: The tests from Consumer Reports were quickly published on Tuesday afternoon, and the organization said its engineers recorded temperatures as high as 116 degrees Fahrenheit while playing Epic's "Infinity Blade II." The iPad was standing up with Apple's Smart Cover, the 4G LTE connection was not turned on, and the tablet was plugged in while the game ran for 45 minutes.

The highest unplugged temperature for the new iPad was found to be 113 degrees Fahrenheit, while plugged in it reached 116 degrees. Those temperatures were 13 degrees and 12 degrees hotter, respectively, than identical tests conducted with the iPad 2.

"During our tests, I held the new iPad in my hands. When it was at its hottest, it felt very warm but not especially uncomfortable if held for a brief period," author Donna L. Tapellini wrote.

The testing also found that the iPad wouldn't recharge its battery while the game was running and it was plugged in. Instead, the battery continued to drain, suggesting the power draw of the new A5X processor was too great for the iPad's USB connection to overcome during heavy use.

Earlier Tuesday, Consumer Reports indicated its plans to publish its findings. In a "First Look Review" published last week, Consumer Reports said Apple's third-generation tablet was "shaping up as the best tablet yet."

"The iPad's high-resolution display requires more power, and the efficiency of the A5X should help mitigate the battery drain it causes," the group wrote last week. "We'll post results of our battery life tests soon."

Of course, it's that larger battery, Retina display and more powerful quad-core graphics processing that have led to a slight increase in operating temperature on the new iPad, when compared to last year's iPad 2. Apple issued a comment on the matter earlier Tuesday, stating that the new iPad operates "well within" its temperature specifications.

The issue began to gain traction this week after an infrared test of the new iPad found it runs 10 degrees hotter, on average, than the iPad 2. The new iPad was measured at 92.5 degrees Fahrenheit, while the iPad 2 measured 83 degrees Fahrenheit.

Consumer Reports made waves last year when it ranked the iPhone 4 the best smartphone available on the market, but later changed its stance and stated it couldn't recommend the iPhone 4. The group tested the iPhone 4 inside a controlled radio frequency isolation chamber, and found that covering the bottom left corner of the handset with one's bare hand could reduce reception.

But the consumer advocacy group took a more favorable view of the iPhone 4S when it was released last year, stating that any reception issues were addressed with the updated handset.

I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.

Consumer Reports lost all credibility with Antennagate, why would anyone trust them after that? They claimed, throughout the entire lifespan of the device (and even still now, I think), that they "couldn't recommend anyone purchase the iPhone 4 because of the antenna problem", despite it being their highest-rated product and the one with the most positive customer ratings, both by a huge margin. Oh, and the fact that the problem didn't actually exist and tens of millions of them were sold, keeping it the best-selling phone on the entire market until it was superseded by the next iPhone.

The assumption can easily be made that if they don't know squat about one field of which we have proper knowledge, they must not know squat about the other fields of which we have less knowledge.

I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.

I believe Apple already said that it takes longer to charge. How much investigation do you need?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

I wonder how they'll backpedal from this farce.

Consumer Reports, that is, not Apple.

Consumer Reports lost all credibility with Antennagate, why would anyone trust them after that? They claimed, throughout the entire lifespan of the device (and even still now, I think), that they "couldn't recommend anyone purchase the iPhone 4 because of the antenna problem", despite it being their highest-rated product and the one with the most positive customer ratings, both by a huge margin. Oh, and the fact that the problem didn't actually exist and tens of millions of them were sold, keeping it the best-selling phone on the entire market until it was superseded by the next iPhone.

The assumption can easily be made that if they don't know squat about one field of which we have proper knowledge, they must not know squat about the other fields of which we have less knowledge.

You have to understand - no one actually expects real technical information from Consumer Reports. Anyone who cares about facts would get their information somewhere else.

CR makes its money by convincing people that CR is on the consumer's side - and creating these silly scam issues helps CR more than it hurts. They simply never retract their insanity and the consumers eat it up.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.

Investigation for what reason? Did Apple promise a certain charge time from a close to dead battery. I'm not sure what there is to investigate?

What's there to investigate? The new iPad is a little bit warmer than the old one? So what? That's the price of increased power. Jeez, some people are dumb. They should take a course in computer basics 101.

I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.

I haven't run mine flat yet, but I expect the charging time to increase in proportion to the battery capacity increase. Similarly, one should expect the thing to run warmer than the iPad2. The battery is 42WH compared to the iPad2's 25WH, but it lasts the same time. So the power dissipation (and therefore operating temperature) must increase.

I believe Apple already said that it takes longer to charge. How much investigation do you need?

You have to understand - no one actually expects real technical information from Consumer Reports. Anyone who cares about facts would get their information somewhere else.

CR makes its money by convincing people that CR is on the consumer's side - and creating these silly scam issues helps CR more than it hurts. They simply never retract their insanity and the consumers eat it up.

It's like local TV stations and all these 'we're looking out for you' consumer reports. The fact that anyone still uses CR is beyond me. Especially when you can go to pretty much any site these days and see customer reviews of products.

I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.

That ties in fairly well with a 5.5 hour charge from about 5% up to 80% that I saw earlier today...

You have to bear in mind how much bigger the battery is in the new one though. iPad 2 was a 25Wh battery, iPad (3rd Gen) is 42.5Wh - that is a 70% increase in capacity, so charging times are going to go up quite a bit...

Consumer Reports lost all credibility with Antennagate, why would anyone trust them after that? They claimed, throughout the entire lifespan of the device (and even still now, I think), that they "couldn't recommend anyone purchase the iPhone 4 because of the antenna problem", despite it being their highest-rated product and the one with the most positive customer ratings, both by a huge margin. Oh, and the fact that the problem didn't actually exist and tens of millions of them were sold, keeping it the best-selling phone on the entire market until it was superseded by the next iPhone.

The assumption can easily be made that if they don't know squat about one field of which we have proper knowledge, they must not know squat about the other fields of which we have less knowledge.

1.) Why were bumpers given out then? For free?
2.) Why was the antennae design changed?
3.) Why did SJ say to hold it another way?

"First-degree burns (superficial) are thought of as shallow or surface burns. First-degree burns are usually red and turn lighter in color if you press on them, like sunburn. These burns do not produce blisters and damage only the top (or epidermal) layer of skin. First-degree burns occur when the skin temperature reaches 118° F (48° C)."

If only there was some way to move your hand on occasion or to rotate the device 180°. I just thought of a way! That thing I just said.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

I believe Apple already said that it takes longer to charge. How much investigation do you need?

Don't worry, Mike Daisey and his "fair and balanced" reporting style is all over this one.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

So, has CR actually tested the temperature of other tablets? How about laptops? My Dell used to get so hot it would be extremely uncomfortable to place on your lap. If they haven't, then this is just garbage reporting/testing.

On another note, as an engineer, I find that picture very satisfying. Looking at the heat signature of the iPad you can see a very uniform change in temperature from the processor outward. To me this speaks of excellent thermal design. If it was a poor design, then you should see hot spots or larger, stepped changes in temperature.

Since haters know nothing about engineering, it's not surprising to see that none of them on all the blogs has even noticed this obvious fact.

I haven't notice that difference because the way I place the smart cover when I use my iPad 2 and now my new iPad. I swing the cover to the back and then fold it out. This gives you double cover on the area where it gets hot and protect the inside of the cover from catching dust that could scratch the display if the cover is closed.

1.) Why were by bumpers given out then? For free?
2.) Why was the antennae design changed?
3.) Why did SJ say to hold it another way?

That is if a problem never existed? Just sayin?

What was wrong with all the other iPhone antennas? Surely you must thnk those were all fatally flawed, too, since they changed them with...each... and...every...revision... of... the... iPhone.

Surely you must also believe the WiFi antennas were fatally flawed in the iPhone 4 because they moved that from being external to internal with the iPhone 4S. In fact, the one thing they kept constant with the iPhone 4 antenna (which is still shipping almost two years later) is that they kept this fatally flawed design active in the iPhone 4S. You know, that phone you claimed was a "real" update because it was the same thing they released back in 2010.

What about all those other fatally flawed components like the RAM, the GPU, the CPU, the BT, the NAND, the interconnects, the display, the casing, and on and on and on... because those have all been tweaked and updated with each revision of the iPhone.

Call me crazy but perhaps Apple took a brilliant idea and simply made it better. Wow! What a fucking crazy idea¡

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I'd like to see some investigation into the charging time of the iPad 3. Apple significantly increased the capacity of the battery, but they packed in the same ol' 10w charger from the previous two generations. My unscientific test is showing it taking approximately 7 full hours to charge from 1% (the point at which the iPad automatically shuts itself down) to 100%.

So? Your electric car in the garage will recharge in the same time span. You know, you gotta go to sleep sometime and plug your toys in.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

Are you guys trying to argue that Consumer Reports has some kind of grudge against Apple? With this latest test, they seem to be dealing in facts that better inform consumer buying decisions.

Apple is now a behemoth. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So if you love the company and what it stands for, why would you oppose holding it to account?

I think CR figures (like many a tech web site) that "bad stuff about Apple" is a proven eyeball deliverer. That's not a grudge, that's just cynical expedience. Which is unfortunate, because CR used to have a reputation for being pretty dispassionate.

But "opening an investigation" into something as silly as "new iPad gets a little warmer"? That's pandering, straight up. A real turnoff.

And "absolute power corrupts absolutely"? What? Are you saying Apple has decided to deliver iPads that seer your flesh and now intends to cover that fact up with evil mind control, so CR to the rescue? What does somewhat warmer have to do with corruption?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

how hot other tablets get doesn't really have any bearing on the issue. this isn't about which tablet gets hotter etc.

That said, how many iPads did they test. They seem to just take one unit, do their thing and apply it to millions of units, forgetting that with delicate electronics sometimes there are outliers that are truly defective. Which is why responsible testers use several units as well as several different testing scenarios

Without posting the ambient testing temperature of the iPads, the numbers they are posting are meaningless. Does it hit 113 degrees when the room is 40 degrees? How about if the room is 95 degrees?

The math behind this is simple, as a previous poster mentioned. The battery is twice the size, yet lasts the same amount of time. That means more energy is being dissipated over the same period of time. A fraction of the energy being dissipated is light, the rest is heat.

Now, that being said, even under normal conditions, the new iPad does seem to get conspicuously warm, whereas the original and iPad 2's would only get warm if you had them working hard. The demo loop that they have on the display models cause the new iPads to run quite warm, whereas the same demo loop running on an iPad 2 would not cause the iPad to get noticeably warmer at room temperature (about 70 degrees F)

What's there to investigate? The new iPad is a little bit warmer than the old one? So what? That's the price of increased power. Jeez, some people are dumb. They should take a course in computer basics 101.

Newer computers actually run cooler due to process change and require less voltage.

What was wrong with all the other iPhone antennas? Surely you must thnk those were all fatally flawed, too, since they changed them with...each... and...every...revision... of... the... iPhone.

Surely you must also believe the WiFi antennas were fatally flawed in the iPhone 4 because they moved that from being external to internal with the iPhone 4S. In fact, the one thing they kept constant with the iPhone 4 antenna (which is still shipping almost two years later) is that they kept this fatally flawed design active in the iPhone 4S. You know, that phone you claimed was a "real" update because it was the same thing they released back in 2010.

What about all those other fatally flawed components like the RAM, the GPU, the CPU, the BT, the NAND, the interconnects, the display, the casing, and on and on and on... because those have all been tweaked and updated with each revision of the iPhone.

Call me crazy but perhaps Apple took a brilliant idea and simply made it better. Wow! What a fucking crazy idea¡

You actually believe the bumper provides protection? Not improved antenna reception? Why is it the only iPhone Apple ever made that needs a faux case?
Call me crazy- think different!

Without posting the ambient testing temperature of the iPads, the numbers they are posting are meaningless. Does it hit 113 degrees when the room is 40 degrees? How about if the room is 95 degrees?

The math behind this is simple, as a previous poster mentioned. The battery is twice the size, yet lasts the same amount of time. That means more energy is being dissipated over the same period of time. A fraction of the energy being dissipated is light, the rest is heat.

Now, that being said, even under normal conditions, the new iPad does seem to get conspicuously warm, whereas the original and iPad 2's would only get warm if you had them working hard. The demo loop that they have on the display models cause the new iPads to run quite warm, whereas the same demo loop running on an iPad 2 would not cause the iPad to get noticeably warmer at room temperature (about 70 degrees F)

Did you read the CR article? It clearly states:

Quote:

The ambient room temperature was about 72 degrees. (Apple recommends not using the iPad in environments over 95 degrees.)

That being said, my new iPad gets noticeably warmer than my old iPad 2, but it doesn't bother me. Meh!

Are you guys trying to argue that Consumer Reports has some kind of grudge against Apple? With this latest test, they seem to be dealing in facts that better inform consumer buying decisions.

Apple is now a behemoth. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So if you love the company and what it stands for, why would you oppose holding it to account?

Some comparison photo's with other devices, also running stress tests would be nice, you know so consumers have some idea how it fares against other devices in the same category and make an informed choice.

So I wonder why CR didn't do this?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Meanwhile, it's been recently reported that the ads in Android's ad subsidized apps get the same permissions as the app-- that is, once you tell an app it can have access to your info, the advertiser gets access to that info. Nary a peep. No "ad gate", no outcry, no invitations from Congress to explain themselves.

Apple may be the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, but as Android fans never get tired of reminding us, they don't dominate the phone market. Yet Google always seems to get a pass when they play fast and loose with your personal data, as a matter of course and as a matter of fundamental business philosophy, whereas people freak out if your iPhone collects cell tower info and keeps it on the phone.

It's like the attitude is "Of course Google collects and sells every fact about me. That's how they roll. So what? Wait, Apple has access to my address book??!! WTF!!!??? LAWSUIT!!!!!!!

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

The highest unplugged temperature for the new iPad was found to be 113 degrees Fahrenheit, while plugged in it reached 116 degrees. Those temperatures were 13 degrees and 12 degrees hotter, respectively, than identical tests conducted with the iPad 2.

If true, so what?

If it get's too hot it'll switch off anyway. This might be a bit annoying, if you are just about to reach some top score. Again: So What?